lol... I'd actually be OK with it if they did that. Back in the old iPod days, they didn't have numbers or anything like that. When a new one came out, it was just the new iPod and they stopped selling the old one. And if people really needed to get specific with it, they would say "Nth gen." Those were the good 'ol…

replying to BlackHoleSun (not enough characters to actually reply to him)

You can either have rediculous names or you can have boring alphanumeric strings. Phones used to be the latter (a lot of Nokias still are) and people didn't really seem to like it much. Now we have the former, and people don't really seem to like it that much.

I'd also love to see a condom called the "Hero"

I suppose that is a good way to think about it, but the concept of stacking numbers went out the window (for me at least) in elementary school. I haven't written them that way, or really seen them written that way, in many many years.

agree #16characters

I just did a quick google search on RPN calculators... That seems like it would be very efficient but really easy to get lost in your calculations. It's not very intuitive (read: confusing as f%&k)

My thoughts exactly. Who's doing this much adding and subtracting on their phone? If you need a calculator at your desk, get one. If you are constantly needing a calculator for basic addition and subtraction out in the real world, then you just need to learn some basic math.

I was mostly being sarcastic because he was randomly bringing Gizmodo and "other sites" into the scenario where they didn't belong. If he simply said it exactly how you said it then it would have been fine. Although, I'd still disagree that it's completely useless (see gthing's remarks).

I agree with the first part, that running barefoot is supposed to be more about form, meaning that this study is pointless

and to clarify... when I said that the "super lightweight" aspect shouldn't matter... I was really emphasizing that they don't need to be "super" lightweight. They would of couse have to at least "lightweight." Running around with bricks for shoes is obviously going to cost you.

expending energy is bad

And while I'm knocking the complete lack of realism in this test... the "barefoot" runners weren't even barefoot at all. They had "yoga socks" on

After reading the source article, I'm not really concerned about the test being mathematically/statistically sound. I'm more concerned about the fact that the entire study doesn't even attempt to replicate the real world.

lol... look at the other pic in the "background on him" link

(a) Not all Lifehacker readers read that trash over at Gizmodo

Another thought (I'm making separate comments for these because they're completely separate thoughts)...

But they do say that "even when unweighted barefoot running was compared foot-to-foot with running in the Mayflies, the shoes won out."

To your first point, the article says:

"The obvious caveats are that ... the shoes were super lightweight Nike Mayfly models, not your average pair."